There is a lot of work suggesting that sport provides cultural or
physical capital which can be converted to economic capital, although
there is less understanding of how this process actually works. An
earlier study (Curtis et al) attempted to measure the effects of
adolescence sport participation by looking at incomes in later life.
Participating in 'organised team sport' at school did seem to be
associated with higher adult earnings, except for those in the highest
education categories. This relationship 'remained statistically
significant when controlling for age, Canadian birth, language of
interview, employment status, and marital status' (274), although the
relationship was weaker for women. Evidently, sport offers some kind of
capital, but men seem better at being able to convert it.

What processes are actually involved? Is it that participation in sport
provides physical capital that leads to success in 'exclusionary
status games over "physical appearance, clothing, eating and
exercise habits, and physical ability in sport"' [quoting Curtis et al
2003], (274)? This study extends the work by exploring the 'High
School varsity sport - adult income relationship (hereinafter
VS-AI)' (274).

The issue is how sporting capital gets converted to economic capital.
One factor might be a connection or link between sport and lifestyle on
the one hand and economic interests on the other. For example, meetings
with work colleagues in a sports gym might have more payoff than solo
sport. Another was that sport can help to build social networks with
various 'gatekeepers' and impress them with social skills or
character, complementing the economic world rather than being something
completely separate and opposed to it. Most attention so far has been
given to the elite sporting practices which are opposed to work [they
compensate for it etc]

There is also a tendency to assume that sports participation has an
individual effect through the building of character, discipline,
teamwork or drive that are all transferable. But cultural capital in
Bourdieu emphasizes that cultural values are arbitrary -- any
characteristic can be used to construct a boundary and an identity.
[The implication is that these valued qualities of character and so on
are also arbitrary and implicated in social distanciation]. Thus
'displays of athleticism, or sport enthusiasm and knowledge, or
dispositions, manners or physiques developed through sports may be
misrecognized as "character", "discipline", or "team player" to
powerful insiders, even when these attributes are unrelated or even
negatively related to productivity' (276). Sport may have an economic
pay-off because elites believe it produces these qualities.

The values of gatekeepers have been studied by Lamont (1992).
Apparently, upper-middle-class individuals value '"self
actualization" and "moral character"' (276) in contrast to passivity
and lack of ambition. Those sharing those values are admired, and those
who do not 'raised feelings of disgust' (276). There is clearly a
link with sport and exercise here. Lareau (2003) similarly found that
upper-middle-class parents 'viewed children as projects and
continuously encouraged and supported their children's personal growth
and self development' (277) -- and opportunities to play competitive
sport were clearly relevant. Indeed, there are often viewed as a
preparation for working in large organizations. Thus there is
considerable evidence of a belief in the '"sport builds
character"' approach.

However, there are doubts. For one thing, high-school sports
participation is not strongly related to academic success or academic
confidence [Grade Point Average is used as a measure of success]
(277). But sports participation is linked to prestige and
popularity. [It should be linked to success if it is building
qualities of competitiveness, self-reliance and so on, of course]. This
raises the possibility that sporting capital is converted to economic
capital because status and reputation is associated with participation,
enabling gatekeepers 'to classify the person as "one of us" or
the "right kind of person" for our group organization to do business
with' (278). In other words 'varsity sport participation is part
of processes of social exclusion and inclusion that would most favour
those in dominant or establish groups (gender, race, class) and
rising "outsiders"' (278).

High-school sports therefore functions as a 'rite of
institution', especially for males. It is a socially-supported ritual.
Much is invested in sport on the part of athletes, so it is not
surprising that boundaries are also important for them. Men often have
to keep up sporting capital in adult life, in order to operate
'within a high-status masculine culture' (279) [the masculinity
originates in sport or in work, or both?]. For women, participation in
sport seems to help them in 'crossing gender boundaries and
constructing new gender statuses, dispositions, and identities' more
generally, which is especially important in entering traditionally male
occupations (279). There is some evidence that sport helps
females cross into 'male' subjects at school. Sport seems to
provide women with the ability to 'better weather the assaults,
resistance and isolation they face' (279) [which looks awfully
like character-building after all? Or are we talking about sporting
success as 'counterbalancing' low status for women?]

These relationships can be tested empirically. Participation in sports
was operationalized as participation in particular kinds of sport, and
also viewing televised sport. Sports that particularly expressed
upper-middle-class or masculine values were expected to be more
important. It is then expected that such participation would be linked
to higher levels of income later, be stronger for men than women, and
among women would be stronger for members of upper-classes [such
membership overcomes the effect of gender to some extent --
'counterbalance' again?]

A telephone survey [evidently piggy-backing on a routine survey
by a news servicehunting 'human interest' stories --clever!] was
conducted involving a 1025 adult respondents, using random digit
dialling. Adults under 21 were eliminated as having insufficiently
independent income. 846 responses were left. Respondents were asked
about their sport participation in high school and their income.
Education was also investigated, especially to be controlled, and so
was age, 'gender, religion, race, employment status, marital status,
city size, and whether the respondent had children' (280).
Participation in particular sporting practices [the elite ones as
above] was researched, and participants were invited to name any other
sports in which they had participated -- and golf came out strongly!
Participants reported whether they had participated '"not at
all," "less than once a week," "once a week," or "more than once a
week"' (281). Intentions to watch televised sport proved less useful
and the results were incorporated as a dummy variable.

Results indicate that men were twice as likely as women to have
participated in sport. Participants had a 27 per cent higher income on
average compared to those who had not. However, female athletes gained
less benefit compared to female non athletes.

Hypotheses were tested by using regression analysis. The VS-AI link was
not significant for women but it was for men. Other variables need to
be controlled -- for example high-school student participation might
also be affected by social class, so the answer was to try to isolate
education itself as a factor [class origins were not measured
directly, it seems, and the author admits that there may be unmeasured
aspects of social class remaining]. It is also interesting see if
marriage prospects are improved by sport participation as well as
employment -- and there did seem to be a link, with former male varsity
athletes married more frequently than non-athletes. The same goes for
male full-time employment, even after controlling for education and
age. However, sports participation seemed to make no difference or
marriage or full-time employment for women athletes. If anything, the
model underestimates indirect effects of sports participation on adult
income levels [it is not specified what these might be, presumably
factors that were not specifically measured?].

The data also seems to confirm the view that sports participation has a
greater effect with upper-class women specifically. It seems that
'women with a high-school education [only] almost had lower incomes if
they participated in varsity sports, while varsity sport participants
with a college degree had household incomes $5,752 greater than non
participants' (283).

If it provides cultural capital, sports participation is most likely to
be effective at an earlier career stage. Thus particular interest was
devoted to measuring the relationship for those between the ages of 22
and 45. First, the relation between levels of education [only] and
sport participation was assessed -- it was insignificant for men but
more significant for women. It was this particular group [relatively
but not too well-educated women] that was studied further, but all men
in that age range.

Sport participation added a considerable amount to the income of both
groups. However, postgraduates did not seem to demonstrate a strong
relationship between sports participation and adult income. This may be
because this group is 'more likely to develop autonomous sporting
lifestyles' (284) [as those who have gained access to the elite
groups tend to, as argued earlier -- their tastes change with postgrad
qualifications or with elite occupations?]. Of individual sports,
swimming seems to be most effective for women, then ball games and
tennis. For men, it seems to be 'golf, aerobics, watching the Olympics,
ball games and cycling in that order' (284). [The full data is
provided in various tables throughout]. Swimming and tennis seem to be
particularly important because they are 'dominated by the upper
middle class, and both are relatively gender equal in terms of rates of
participation' (286) [There is a hint that this is based on some
prior empirical data about the social class and gender backgrounds of
participants].

Swimming and tennis do not require women to cross gender boundaries,
but participation in ball games may do so [but wasn't that the whole
point?]. Television viewing also seems to be 'much more gender
equal in terms of both producers and consumers' (286) [and there
is another hint that this is because upper-middle-class members view
Olympic coverage especially -- so class counterbalances gender again].
Golf is a strong factor for men: it is the most male dominated, but one
'in which masculinist qualities of physical aggression and dominance...
are muted or sublimated' (286). Cycling and aerobics also produced a
middle-class body -- these sports seem to be better at 'expressing
upper-middle-class values of self-actualization and competence that are
relatively androgynous' (286) which conforms with Bourdieu's analysis
of different class stances on male bodies [only proles like big
muscles]. In this sense, adult sporting practices 'may express
qualities counter to values often identified as central to hegemonic
masculinity' (287). [I'm not sure -- hegemonic masculinity also varies
by social class -- not all men need big muscles?]

The connection between sporting capital and economic capital seems
straightforward and established for males, embodied in the notion of
sport as a rite of institution. Sports participation for women is
increasing in popularity, and it still seems to offer the chance of
crossing gender boundaries, by 'publicly engaging in a masculine
institution and masculine practices, and using their bodies in
masculine ways' (287). Such gender crossing does not seem to be
necessary if occupations are less male exclusive. Again, the
implication is that it is not a matter of character formation alone.

The main finding is that women seem to receive less economic benefit
from sport 'and their participation may even have negative
economic impacts' (288). It also seems that the best sports to take
part in are not the heavily masculinised ones, but the more androgynous
types.

Future research is needed, to chart changes over time. There needs to
be better measures of sport participation, for example to get
variations inside varsity sport, or to consider non varsity variants.
The category 'ball games' seems too general. Information is needed on
duration and intensity of sport, and the degree of social exclusion.
Many other variables might be included, such as 'Measures of
class trajectory, occupational history, high school and college
academic performance and specializations, religiosity, and migration
history and status' (288). [I think social class as a separate variable
is a big omission --it would help especially to sort out the implied
'counterbalance' notions between class and gender] It also be
useful to follow up the survey with semi structured interviews,
especially with gatekeepers, looking for the qualities that they
actually require. [There is an excellent one done by Williams et al
(2006 ) on the recruiters watching candidates perform at assessment
centres. As would be expected in the UK at least, recruiters look at
the information from psychometric tests and other standard data, but
still tend to prefer people who were like them and who would fit in.
Sporting participation was not specifically mentioned, but it almost
certainly has a an influence on those subjective judgements].

References [lots
more in the actual article]
Curtis, J., McTeer, W and White, P (2003) ' Do high school athletes
earn more pay?: Youth sport participation and earnings as an adult', in
Sociology of Sport Journal,
20: 60--76
Lamont, M (1992) Money,
morals and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle
class, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A (2003) Unequal
childhoods: Class, race, and family life, Berkeley: University
of California Press Williams, D., Brown, P.
and Hesketh, A. (2006) How to Get the Best Graduate Job:
Insider
Strategies for Success in the Graduate Job Market.London: Pearson Education Limited.

[It is also interesting to see a reference here to Murphy and his discussion of social closure]